Keeping a 3 bedroom council house when your children have grown up

[Iwishitwerewarmer]

Just pondering - what are everyone’s opinions on a single parent raising their children in a council house/housing association house and staying there once their children have moved out? Should they downsize into a one bed flat/smaller property or is it their right to remain in their home/neighbourhood?

Added extra - they have looked after the property well, have landscaped the garden, installed a new kitchen and generally added value to the property.

It’s their home. They shouldn’t be forced out into a one bedroom flat anymore than a private home owner should have to sell their 4 bed detached and move into a one bed to free up houses for new families.

How would you have felt bringing your dc up in a one bed all overcrowded became a single adult in a 3 bed had made their garden nice?

I think people would judge even if they don’t say anything. It’s not the same as owning your own home

They should be allowed to stay. It's their home.

In a perfect world they would keep it but this is a country with rapid population growth at the moment.

Whatever you think of the asylum issue, in the cold light of day the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for one person to live in a three bed house when there might be, say, a group of 5 people who need a home and a one bed flat is the only thing available.

For better or worse we live in a world with lots of mobility, and that means we need to build many more homes.

If they have a secure tenancy then that’s their right. The government need to build more council homes it should be the case that many more people can live in one with security and affordability.

Some people would judge but wouldn’t bother me, especially as you’ve spent money on it. Even with grown up kids they might want to stay periodically or when they have kids you’ll have space for them to visit.

The issue is there aren’t that many 1 beds so they could be waiting for a swap for years. Which is what a lot of people are waiting for

Why on earth would someone pay for a new kitchen in a house they don’t own? Legally they can stay there but as they don’t own it and there aren’t enough council houses then morally I don’t think they should, I don’t think it’s the same as someone who owns their own home not wanting to move.

How are the tax payer funding that person? People in council houses and housing association homes pay rent like everyone else and a lot work full time.

I do think local authorities who have a shortage of family houses should help incentivise people to move to smaller places but I don’t like the idea of forcing them out.

It's their home but it's provided by the council for their needs. As they no longer need such a large property I think they definitely should be moved to something smaller. There will be larger families on the waiting list for a house and the council has a duty to find them something suitable. If the tenant has spent their money changing a home they don't own then that's their lookout (same as renting).

I know someone (adult) who had to leave their council house when the person whose name it was in (their parent) died. It was really soon after the funeral too.

Did they not introduce a 'bedroom tax' for unused rooms in council houses?

Unfortunately, the person cannot be 'made' to downsize. My parents had a 4 bedroom council property, my mum moved into permanent care about 2 years ago, which left my dad on his own there. There was no way he would even listen to the option of moving and he couldn't access the upstairs at all by that point. He'd lived there since 1965. Sadly he died 6 months ago.
It's a difficult one because on one hand the house is their home, but really should be viewed in the same vein as a long term rental, as they don't own it, plus they are often receiving housing benefit etc in order to pay the rent. Weirdly, to move to a 1 bedroom sheltered housing property was a higher monthly rent than the four bedroom house, which didn't give dad any incentive to actually want to move

People on MN forget that people who live in SH are people just like them. People with families and lives. They are not cattle to be moved around.

They shouldn't be forced to move, but I do agree with the bedroom tax if they are receiving benefits.

A family member lived in a large 3 bed home all alone and received full housing benefit for it. He was outraged when the bedroom tax came in. If someone is paying the full rent themselves then they should be allowed to stay. The government/housing associations need to build more homes, not turf out the people already in them.

If your question is more aimed at the fact they live in a council house, then I don’t think they should have to move - why should they when there are plenty of older couples who stay living in their large homes even after their children have left? Like others have said it’s their home.

However if your question is more around should people downsize when they no longer need so much space to make room for other families struggling to find a home, then yes I think they should …. but only if they can. A homeowner with a low mortgage or no mortgage is in a much better position to downsize or find another property. It’s not the same for people living in social housing properties. The waiting lists are endless and you have less say where you end up.

I just can't get my head around this. Almost everyone has a 'home' whether you rent or own. Nobody has an unconditional right to stay in our home. If someone defaults too many times on their mortgage then they will have their home repossessed. If a tenant misses their rent payments too often then they will be evicted. Even if you don't have a mortgage and own your home outright, if you can't pay Council tax and other bills then your home can be repossessed.

In this context and in the context that we are living in a housing crisis where families are living in hotels and other unsuitable accommodation then why on earth would we allow a single person to stay in a house that they would be under occupy? That is ridiculously selfish. That house could be a home for five people instead of one. The state can't afford to subsidise the madness of the mother staying just because they would quite like to and feel attached to it.

Im sorry you have lost your Dad, thinking of you. I can’t believe that a one bedroom place was higher rent than a 4 bedroom house, that’s crazy!

They didn't buy the house at a market rate and are usually not paying a market rate for the rent

I understand of course why people want to stay in the home where they have brought up their children, and of course they currently have every right to do so. However, given the shortage of council houses, I think people should be encouraged to move into smaller accommodation once they no longer need a family house.

I know a woman in her 70s who lives alone in the 3 bedroom council house she was allocated when she had 3 young children. It is a perfect house for a family with a lovely garden. She was very grateful to have it 40 years ago and I wish she would give it up to someone who needs it more than she does, but she loves it and there is no way that she will leave voluntarily.

They are allowed to stay under current rules so I would not judge them… but I do think the rules should change to have some re evaluation of need because it’s not really fair for families to be in temporary accommodation while single people are in 3 bed properties.

Yes I definitely agree that more affordable social housing homes need to be built and less student accommodation. In my city it is all brand new student flats which is great for the students but very few affordable social housing homes are being built.

Would i be right to assume the rent is considerably less and the accommodation better than the equivalent mortgage or commercial rent for a similar sized property?

I think the argument is that there are families with children who have greater need of that size house.

How would the occupant have felt if they'd been made to bring their children up in a much smaller house whilst next door was much bigger and occupied by just one person?

I don't understand how people can say:

• Refugees are welcome here

• No building homes on the greenbelt

• People in social accommodation shouldn't be forced to downsize

All at the same time. It's not possible to have all three without getting a massive increase in homelessness